Common use of A unique language and culture Clause in Contracts

A unique language and culture. So entwined is the Japanese language with culture (Xxxxxxx, 2012, p. 37) that it is difficult to mention one without mentioning the other. As Japanese culture ‘is encoded and carried within the Japanese language’ (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 275) both are portrayed as being unique and it is widely believed that they are only accessible to the racially ‘pure’ Japanese. Japaneseness tends to be represented as relational, you are either Japanese or you are ‘foreign’, and a number of binary sets can be used to represent this distinction (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 108). The binary set most applicable to my thesis is the wa/yo binary. Nihonjinron is based upon differences between a unique essentialist Japanese (wa) culture (the exception) which is always set in opposition with a European (yo) culture (the norm) (Xxxxxxx, 1992). Wa literally means harmony (XxXxxxx, 2014) and it ‘designates a specifically Japanese cultural sphere’ (Xxxxxx, 2011, p. 274) and yo literally means ocean, which can be extended to mean Western (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 109). Washiki (Japanese style) is connoted with being at home (uchi) where traditional Japanese artefacts and practices are preferred, whereas yoshiki (western style) is connoted with being outside the home (xxxx) in public buildings with Western furnishings which necessitate Western artefacts and practices (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 109). The wa/yo binary would seem to define those who have insider (uchi) status and those who have outsider (xxxx) status (see chapter 7). Xxxxxxx (1992, p. 28) tries to defend the linking of ‘race’ to culture in the Nihonjinron literature as he states that it is not necessarily linked to racism but to “‘race’ thinking” as in Japan there is a belief that: Particular cultural traits should belong to, or are the exclusive property of, a particular group with particular phenotypical and genotypical traits (‘racially exclusive possession of a particular culture’) (Xxxxxxx, 1992, p. 28). Xxxxxxx (1992) believes that this notion is different from the one which was used to justify colonisation in Britain which was based on the idea that ‘genetically transmitted traits determine (or condition) cultural traits (genetic determinism). He maintains that the racially exclusive possession of a particular culture is stressed over genetic determinism in the Japanese context so it cannot be linked to racism. However, Xxxxx (1993, p. 21) argues that although racism started during colonialism, its reproduction is determined by the rise of the nation state and it is linked with the capitalist mode of production. As Japan is a nation state operating within the capitalist mode of production then the ideology of Nihonjinron can be seen as perpetuating a form of racism. This is because it is claimed that only ‘pure’ Japanese (Japanese ‘race’) own a monolithic Japanese culture so those who are not racially Japanese, including the A-Js, are automatically excluded from such ownership. This suggests that racism is not simply a “White ideology” created to dominate black people (ibid.). It is widely believed that the Japanese language is so unique that it is considered to be untranslatable (Xxxx,18 1986, p. 77) which makes criticism of Japan by ‘foreigners’ invalid due to an inability to understand the language (ibid.). Language is used as a type of ‘semantic bamboo curtain’ which would seem to serve as a linguistic barrier between Japan and the outside world (Xxxx, 1986, p. 60). In line with the ideological narrative of Nihonjinron so-called pure Japanese words are linked to the notion of ‘pure’ Japanese blood as they are constructed as constituting the “voices of the blood”, ‘they antedate history in reflecting the pure form of tribal sentiment and ethnic homogeneity’ (ibid., p. 219). Pure Japanese words refer to words which are considered to be Japanese in origin rather than loan words deriving from Chinese and Western languages (Xxxx, 1986, p. 56). An example of which are the Japanese emic concepts I have used in my thesis including: tatemae (political correctness) and honne (real feelings) (this chapter) and uchi (inside) and xxxx (outside) (see chapter 7). Japanese honorifics (keigo) are also used to emphasise the uniqueness of the 18 See Xxxx (1986) for an in-depth discussion on the uniqueness of the Japanese language. Japanese language (Kubota, 2014, p. 22) (see chapters 5 and 6) and other unique features, which make the Japanese language impenetrable for outsiders, include silence, and haragei (an implicit way of communicating) (Xxxx, 1986; Kubota, 2014). Stanlaw refers to such a belief as the linguistic version of Nihonjinron, which implies that: Westerners and Japanese learn, receive, and process language differently.[ ] Ultimately, it is only Japanese who can speak real Japanese. [ ] However it appears that only someone who is biologically prepared- that is, racially Japanese – can ever really master the language. Thus, only people born into the culture via ‘race’ can ever understand the Japanese (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 27). Numerous examples exist in the Nihonjinron literature that suggest the Japanese language is the exclusive possession of the Japanese ‘race’ (Yoshino, 1992). This suggests that ‘race’, language and culture are compounded in the narrative of Nihonjinron making them inseparable (Xxxxxxxx, 2005). Xxxxxxxx (2012a, p. 30) argues that there have been ‘no changes with regard to Japanese language and the way it is believed to relate to Japanese and to foreigners’. What is more such a language ideology also underpins public policy as Xxxxxxx (2012, p. 46) argues: Notions of ‘difficulty’ and ‘spirit’ hide the fact that foreigners […] are not particularly welcome in a Japanese society which remains relatively closed. In other words, historically produced ideologies have constructed concrete policy which in turn has reinforced ideologies of homogeneity. This suggests that the isomorphism of land equals people equals culture equals polity dominates twenty-first century conservative Japan (Befu, 2009, p. 35). This is because ‘the standardization of language and culture constructs fixed, essentialized and taken-for-granted knowledge and such knowledge as hegemony regulates people’ (Kubota, 2014, p. 25). Language is also important because it can be linked to the notion of ideological capital. Certain people have a degree of control over ideological capital which means that their views can be heard (Sugimoto, 2014, p. 15). According to Xxxxxxxx, such people form part of core subcultural groups and they can define the normative framework of society in Japan. He emphasises that: [T]he slanted views of Japan’s totality tend to proliferate because writers, readers, and editors of publications on the general characteristics of Japanese society belong to the core subcultural sphere. Sharing their subcultural base, they conceptualize and hypothesize in a similar way, confirm their portrayal of Japan among themselves, and rarely seek outside confirmation (Xxxxxxxx, 2014, p. 15). The ideological narrative of uni-raciality would seem to stem from the upper echelons of society and it tends to be represented as if it is the view of the entire Japanese population through channels such as education, publishing and the media in an attempt to maintain the status quo of Japanese society. The belief in uni-raciality, which would seem to be endorsed by senior Japanese politicians, and espoused as the common view of the Japanese people, makes it difficult for my A-J ethnic formation to be included within such a narrow conceptualisation of Japaneseness and as such it would seem to mark them as being culturally and linguistically incompetent. This is because those of mixed ethnicities, including the A-Js, as marked as different from the ‘standard’ Japanese (Befu, 2001). Next I will demonstrate how the notion of uni-raciality can be linked to European theorisations of ethnicity.

A unique language and culture. So entwined is the Japanese language with culture (Xxxxxxx, 2012, p. 37) that it is difficult to mention one without mentioning the other. As Japanese culture ‘is encoded and carried within the Japanese language’ (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 275) both are portrayed as being unique and it is widely believed that they are only accessible to the racially ‘pure’ Japanese. Japaneseness tends to be represented as relational, you are either Japanese or you are ‘foreign’, and a number of binary sets can be used to represent this distinction (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 108). The binary set most applicable to my thesis is the wa/yo binary. Nihonjinron is based upon differences between a unique essentialist Japanese (wa) culture (the exception) which is always set in opposition with a European (yo) culture (the norm) (XxxxxxxYoshino, 1992). Wa literally means harmony (XxXxxxx, 2014) and it ‘designates a specifically Japanese cultural sphere’ (Xxxxxx, 2011, p. 274) and yo literally means ocean, which can be extended to mean Western (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 109). Washiki (Japanese style) is connoted with being at home (uchi) where traditional Japanese artefacts and practices are preferred, whereas yoshiki (western style) is connoted with being outside the home (xxxx) in public buildings with Western furnishings which necessitate Western artefacts and practices (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 109). The wa/yo binary would seem to define those who have insider (uchi) status and those who have outsider (xxxx) status (see chapter 7). Xxxxxxx Yoshino (1992, p. 28) tries to defend the linking of ‘race’ to culture in the Nihonjinron literature as he states that it is not necessarily linked to racism but to “‘race’ thinking” as in Japan there is a belief that: Particular cultural traits should belong to, or are the exclusive property of, a particular group with particular phenotypical and genotypical traits (‘racially exclusive possession of a particular culture’) (XxxxxxxYoshino, 1992, p. 28). Xxxxxxx Yoshino (1992) believes that this notion is different from the one which was used to justify colonisation in Britain which was based on the idea that ‘genetically transmitted traits determine (or condition) cultural traits (genetic determinism). He maintains that the racially exclusive possession of a particular culture is stressed over genetic determinism in the Japanese context so it cannot be linked to racism. However, Xxxxx Miles (1993, p. 21) argues that although racism started during colonialism, its reproduction is determined by the rise of the nation state and it is linked with the capitalist mode of production. As Japan is a nation state operating within the capitalist mode of production then the ideology of Nihonjinron can be seen as perpetuating a form of racism. This is because it is claimed that only ‘pure’ Japanese (Japanese ‘race’) own a monolithic Japanese culture so those who are not racially Japanese, including the A-Js, are automatically excluded from such ownership. This suggests that racism is not simply a “White ideology” created to dominate black people (ibid.). It is widely believed that the Japanese language is so unique that it is considered to be untranslatable (Xxxx,18 1986, p. 77) which makes criticism of Japan by ‘foreigners’ invalid due to an inability to understand the language (ibid.). Language is used as a type of ‘semantic bamboo curtain’ which would seem to serve as a linguistic barrier between Japan and the outside world (Xxxx, 1986, p. 60). In line with the ideological narrative of Nihonjinron so-called pure Japanese words are linked to the notion of ‘pure’ Japanese blood as they are constructed as constituting the “voices of the blood”, ‘they antedate history in reflecting the pure form of tribal sentiment and ethnic homogeneity’ (ibid., p. 219). Pure Japanese words refer to words which are considered to be Japanese in origin rather than loan words deriving from Chinese and Western languages (Xxxx, 1986, p. 56). An example of which are the Japanese emic concepts I have used in my thesis including: tatemae (political correctness) and honne (real feelings) (this chapter) and uchi (inside) and xxxx (outside) (see chapter 7). Japanese honorifics (keigo) are also used to emphasise the uniqueness of the 18 See Xxxx (1986) for an in-depth discussion on the uniqueness of the Japanese language. Japanese language (Kubota, 2014, p. 22) (see chapters 5 and 6) and other unique features, which make the Japanese language impenetrable for outsiders, include silence, and haragei (an implicit way of communicating) (Xxxx, 1986; Kubota, 2014). Stanlaw refers to such a belief as the linguistic version of Nihonjinron, which implies that: Westerners and Japanese learn, receive, and process language differently.[ ] Ultimately, it is only Japanese who can speak real Japanese. [ ] However it appears that only someone who is biologically prepared- that is, racially Japanese – can ever really master the language. Thus, only people born into the culture via ‘race’ can ever understand the Japanese (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 27). Numerous examples exist in the Nihonjinron literature that suggest the Japanese language is the exclusive possession of the Japanese ‘race’ (Yoshino, 1992). This suggests that ‘race’, language and culture are compounded in the narrative of Nihonjinron making them inseparable (Xxxxxxxx, 2005). Xxxxxxxx Heinrich (2012a, p. 30) argues that there have been ‘no changes with regard to Japanese language and the way it is believed to relate to Japanese and to foreigners’. What is more such a language ideology also underpins public policy as Xxxxxxx (2012, p. 46) argues: Notions of ‘difficulty’ and ‘spirit’ hide the fact that foreigners […] are not particularly welcome in a Japanese society which remains relatively closed. In other words, historically produced ideologies have constructed concrete policy which in turn has reinforced ideologies of homogeneity. This suggests that the isomorphism of land equals people equals culture equals polity dominates twenty-first century conservative Japan (Befu, 2009, p. 35). This is because ‘the standardization of language and culture constructs fixed, essentialized and taken-for-granted knowledge and such knowledge as hegemony regulates people’ (Kubota, 2014, p. 25). Language is also important because it can be linked to the notion of ideological capital. Certain people have a degree of control over ideological capital which means that their views can be heard (Sugimoto, 2014, p. 15). According to XxxxxxxxSugimoto, such people form part of core subcultural groups and they can define the normative framework of society in Japan. He emphasises that: [T]he slanted views of Japan’s totality tend to proliferate because writers, readers, and editors of publications on the general characteristics of Japanese society belong to the core subcultural sphere. Sharing their subcultural base, they conceptualize and hypothesize in a similar way, confirm their portrayal of Japan among themselves, and rarely seek outside confirmation (XxxxxxxxSugimoto, 2014, p. 15). The ideological narrative of uni-raciality would seem to stem from the upper echelons of society and it tends to be represented as if it is the view of the entire Japanese population through channels such as education, publishing and the media in an attempt to maintain the status quo of Japanese society. The belief in uni-raciality, which would seem to be endorsed by senior Japanese politicians, and espoused as the common view of the Japanese people, makes it difficult for my A-J ethnic formation to be included within such a narrow conceptualisation of Japaneseness and as such it would seem to mark xxxx them as being culturally and linguistically incompetent. This is because those of mixed ethnicities, including the A-Js, as marked as different from the ‘standard’ Japanese (Befu, 2001). Next I will demonstrate how the notion of uni-raciality can be linked to European theorisations of ethnicity.

A unique language and culture. So entwined is the Japanese language with culture (Xxxxxxx, 2012, p. 37) that it is difficult to mention one without mentioning the other. As Japanese culture ‘is encoded and carried within the Japanese language’ (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 275) both are portrayed as being unique and it is widely believed that they are only accessible to the racially ‘pure’ Japanese. Japaneseness tends to be represented as relational, you are either Japanese or you are ‘foreign’, and a number of binary sets can be used to represent this distinction (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 108). The binary set most applicable to my thesis is the wa/yo binary. Nihonjinron is based upon differences between a unique essentialist Japanese (wa) culture (the exception) which is always set in opposition with a European (yo) culture (the norm) (Xxxxxxx, 1992). Wa literally means harmony (XxXxxxx, 2014) and it ‘designates a specifically Japanese cultural sphere’ (Xxxxxx, 2011, p. 274) and yo literally means ocean, which can be extended to mean Western (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 109). Washiki (Japanese style) is connoted with being at home (uchi) where traditional Japanese artefacts and practices are preferred, whereas yoshiki (western style) is connoted with being outside the home (xxxx) in public buildings with Western furnishings which necessitate Western artefacts and practices (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 109). The wa/yo binary would seem to define those who have insider (uchi) status and those who have outsider (xxxx) status (see chapter 7). Xxxxxxx (1992, p. 28) tries to defend the linking of ‘race’ to culture in the Nihonjinron literature as he states that it is not necessarily linked to racism but to “‘race’ thinking” as in Japan there is a belief that: Particular cultural traits should belong to, or are the exclusive property of, a particular group with particular phenotypical and genotypical traits (‘racially exclusive possession of a particular culture’) (Xxxxxxx, 1992, p. 28). Xxxxxxx (1992) believes that this notion is different from the one which was used to justify colonisation in Britain which was based on the idea that ‘genetically transmitted traits determine (or condition) cultural traits (genetic determinism). He maintains that the racially exclusive possession of a particular culture is stressed over genetic determinism in the Japanese context so it cannot be linked to racism. However, Xxxxx (1993, p. 21) argues that although racism started during colonialism, its reproduction is determined by the rise of the nation state and it is linked with the capitalist mode of production. As Japan is a nation state operating within the capitalist mode of production then the ideology of Nihonjinron can be seen as perpetuating a form of racism. This is because it is claimed that only ‘pure’ Japanese (Japanese ‘race’) own a monolithic Japanese culture so those who are not racially Japanese, including the A-Js, are automatically excluded from such ownership. This suggests that racism is not simply a “White ideology” created to dominate black people (ibid.). It is widely believed that the Japanese language is so unique that it is considered to be untranslatable (Xxxx,18 1986, p. 77) which makes criticism of Japan by ‘foreigners’ invalid due to an inability to understand the language (ibid.). Language is used as a type of ‘semantic bamboo curtain’ which would seem to serve as a linguistic barrier between Japan and the outside world (Xxxx, 1986, p. 60). In line with the ideological narrative of Nihonjinron so-called pure Japanese words are linked to the notion of ‘pure’ Japanese blood as they are constructed as constituting the “voices of the blood”, ‘they antedate history in reflecting the pure form of tribal sentiment and ethnic homogeneity’ (ibid., p. 219). Pure Japanese words refer to words which are considered to be Japanese in origin rather than loan words deriving from Chinese and Western languages (Xxxx, 1986, p. 56). An example of which are the Japanese emic concepts I have used in my thesis including: tatemae (political correctness) and honne (real feelings) (this chapter) and uchi (inside) and xxxx (outside) (see chapter 7). Japanese honorifics (keigo) are also used to emphasise the uniqueness of the 18 See Xxxx (1986) for an in-depth discussion on the uniqueness of the Japanese language. Japanese language (Kubota, 2014, p. 22) (see chapters 5 and 6) and other unique features, which make the Japanese language impenetrable for outsiders, include silence, and haragei (an implicit way of communicating) (Xxxx, 1986; Kubota, 2014). Stanlaw refers to such a belief as the linguistic version of Nihonjinron, which implies that: Westerners and Japanese learn, receive, and process language differently.[ ] Ultimately, it is only Japanese who can speak real Japanese. [ ] However it appears that only someone who is biologically prepared- that is, racially Japanese – can ever really master the language. Thus, only people born into the culture via ‘race’ can ever understand the Japanese (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 27). Numerous examples exist in the Nihonjinron literature that suggest the Japanese language is the exclusive possession of the Japanese ‘race’ (Yoshino, 1992). This suggests that ‘race’, language and culture are compounded in the narrative of Nihonjinron making them inseparable (Xxxxxxxx, 2005). Xxxxxxxx (2012a, p. 30) argues that there have been ‘no changes with regard to Japanese language and the way it is believed to relate to Japanese and to foreigners’. What is more such a language ideology also underpins public policy as Xxxxxxx (2012, p. 46) argues: Notions of ‘difficulty’ and ‘spirit’ hide the fact that foreigners […] are not particularly welcome in a Japanese society which remains relatively closed. In other words, historically produced ideologies have constructed concrete policy which in turn has reinforced ideologies of homogeneity. This suggests that the isomorphism of land equals people equals culture equals polity dominates twenty-first century conservative Japan (Befu, 2009, p. 35). This is because ‘the standardization of language and culture constructs fixed, essentialized and taken-for-granted knowledge and such knowledge as hegemony regulates people’ (Kubota, 2014, p. 25). Language is also important because it can be linked to the notion of ideological capital. Certain people have a degree of control over ideological capital which means that their views can be heard (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2014, p. 15). According to Xxxxxxxx, such people form part of core subcultural groups and they can define the normative framework of society in Japan. He emphasises that: [T]he slanted views of Japan’s totality tend to proliferate because writers, readers, and editors of publications on the general characteristics of Japanese society belong to the core subcultural sphere. Sharing their subcultural base, they conceptualize and hypothesize in a similar way, confirm their portrayal of Japan among themselves, and rarely seek outside confirmation (Xxxxxxxx, 2014, p. 15). The ideological narrative of uni-raciality would seem to stem from the upper echelons of society and it tends to be represented as if it is the view of the entire Japanese population through channels such as education, publishing and the media in an attempt to maintain the status quo of Japanese society. The belief in uni-raciality, which would seem to be endorsed by senior Japanese politicians, and espoused as the common view of the Japanese people, makes it difficult for my A-J ethnic formation to be included within such a narrow conceptualisation of Japaneseness and as such it would seem to mark them as being culturally and linguistically incompetent. This is because those of mixed ethnicities, including the A-Js, as marked as different from the ‘standard’ Japanese (Befu, 2001). Next I will demonstrate how the notion of uni-raciality can be linked to European theorisations of ethnicity.

A unique language and culture. So entwined is the Japanese language with culture (Xxxxxxx, 2012, p. 37) that it is difficult to mention one without mentioning the other. As Japanese culture ‘is encoded and carried within the Japanese language’ (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 275) both are portrayed as being unique and it is widely believed that they are only accessible to the racially ‘pure’ Japanese. Japaneseness tends to be represented as relational, you are either Japanese or you are ‘foreign’, and a number of binary sets can be used to represent this distinction (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 108). The binary set most applicable to my thesis is the wa/yo binary. Nihonjinron is based upon differences between a unique essentialist Japanese (wa) culture (the exception) which is always set in opposition with a European (yo) culture (the norm) (XxxxxxxYoshino, 1992). Wa literally means harmony (XxXxxxx, 2014) and it ‘designates a specifically Japanese cultural sphere’ (Xxxxxx, 2011, p. 274) and yo literally means ocean, which can be extended to mean Western (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 109). Washiki (Japanese style) is connoted with being at home (uchi) where traditional Japanese artefacts and practices are preferred, whereas yoshiki (western style) is connoted with being outside the home (xxxx) in public buildings with Western furnishings which necessitate Western artefacts and practices (XxXxxxx, 2014, p. 109). The wa/yo binary would seem to define those who have insider (uchi) status and those who have outsider (xxxx) status (see chapter 7). Xxxxxxx (1992, p. 28) tries to defend the linking of ‘race’ to culture in the Nihonjinron literature as he states that it is not necessarily linked to racism but to “‘race’ thinking” as in Japan there is a belief that: Particular cultural traits should belong to, or are the exclusive property of, a particular group with particular phenotypical and genotypical traits (‘racially exclusive possession of a particular culture’) (Xxxxxxx, 1992, p. 28). Xxxxxxx (1992) believes that this notion is different from the one which was used to justify colonisation in Britain which was based on the idea that ‘genetically transmitted traits determine (or condition) cultural traits (genetic determinism). He maintains that the racially exclusive possession of a particular culture is stressed over genetic determinism in the Japanese context so it cannot be linked to racism. However, Xxxxx (1993, p. 21) argues that although racism started during colonialism, its reproduction is determined by the rise of the nation state and it is linked with the capitalist mode of production. As Japan is a nation state operating within the capitalist mode of production then the ideology of Nihonjinron can be seen as perpetuating a form of racism. This is because it is claimed that only ‘pure’ Japanese (Japanese ‘race’) own a monolithic Japanese culture so those who are not racially Japanese, including the A-Js, are automatically excluded from such ownership. This suggests that racism is not simply a “White ideology” created to dominate black people (ibid.). It is widely believed that the Japanese language is so unique that it is considered to be untranslatable (Xxxx,18 1986, p. 77) which makes criticism of Japan by ‘foreigners’ invalid due to an inability to understand the language (ibid.). Language is used as a type of ‘semantic bamboo curtain’ which would seem to serve as a linguistic barrier between Japan and the outside world (Xxxx, 1986, p. 60). In line with the ideological narrative of Nihonjinron so-called pure Japanese words are linked to the notion of ‘pure’ Japanese blood as they are constructed as constituting the “voices of the blood”, ‘they antedate history in reflecting the pure form of tribal sentiment and ethnic homogeneity’ (ibid., p. 219). Pure Japanese words refer to words which are considered to be Japanese in origin rather than loan words deriving from Chinese and Western languages (Xxxx, 1986, p. 56). An example of which are the Japanese emic concepts I have used in my thesis including: tatemae (political correctness) and honne (real feelings) (this chapter) and uchi (inside) and xxxx (outside) (see chapter 7). Japanese honorifics (keigo) are also used to emphasise the uniqueness of the 18 See Xxxx (1986) for an in-depth discussion on the uniqueness of the Japanese language. Japanese language (Kubota, 2014, p. 22) (see chapters 5 and 6) and other unique features, which make the Japanese language impenetrable for outsiders, include silence, and haragei (an implicit way of communicating) (Xxxx, 1986; Kubota, 2014). Stanlaw refers to such a belief as the linguistic version of Nihonjinron, which implies that: Westerners and Japanese learn, receive, and process language differently.[ ] Ultimately, it is only Japanese who can speak real Japanese. [ ] However it appears that only someone who is biologically prepared- that is, racially Japanese – can ever really master the language. Thus, only people born into the culture via ‘race’ can ever understand the Japanese (Stanlaw, 2004, p. 27). Numerous examples exist in the Nihonjinron literature that suggest the Japanese language is the exclusive possession of the Japanese ‘race’ (Yoshino, 1992). This suggests that ‘race’, language and culture are compounded in the narrative of Nihonjinron making them inseparable (Xxxxxxxx, 2005). Xxxxxxxx (2012a, p. 30) argues that there have been ‘no changes with regard to Japanese language and the way it is believed to relate to Japanese and to foreigners’. What is more such a language ideology also underpins public policy as Xxxxxxx (2012, p. 46) argues: Notions of ‘difficulty’ and ‘spirit’ hide the fact that foreigners […] are not particularly welcome in a Japanese society which remains relatively closed. In other words, historically produced ideologies have constructed concrete policy which in turn has reinforced ideologies of homogeneity. This suggests that the isomorphism of land equals people equals culture equals polity dominates twenty-first century conservative Japan (Befu, 2009, p. 35). This is because ‘the standardization of language and culture constructs fixed, essentialized and taken-for-granted knowledge and such knowledge as hegemony regulates people’ (Kubota, 2014, p. 25). Language is also important because it can be linked to the notion of ideological capital. Certain people have a degree of control over ideological capital which means that their views can be heard (SugimotoXxxxxxxx, 2014, p. 15). According to Xxxxxxxx, such people form part of core subcultural groups and they can define the normative framework of society in Japan. He emphasises that: [T]he slanted views of Japan’s totality tend to proliferate because writers, readers, and editors of publications on the general characteristics of Japanese society belong to the core subcultural sphere. Sharing their subcultural base, they conceptualize and hypothesize in a similar way, confirm their portrayal of Japan among themselves, and rarely seek outside confirmation (Xxxxxxxx, 2014, p. 15). The ideological narrative of uni-raciality would seem to stem from the upper echelons of society and it tends to be represented as if it is the view of the entire Japanese population through channels such as education, publishing and the media in an attempt to maintain the status quo of Japanese society. The belief in uni-raciality, which would seem to be endorsed by senior Japanese politicians, and espoused as the common view of the Japanese people, makes it difficult for my A-J ethnic formation to be included within such a narrow conceptualisation of Japaneseness and as such it would seem to mark them as being culturally and linguistically incompetent. This is because those of mixed ethnicities, including the A-Js, as marked as different from the ‘standard’ Japanese (Befu, 2001). Next I will demonstrate how the notion of uni-raciality can be linked to European theorisations of ethnicity.